This same organization hires Adulterers and Fornicators and Blasphemers and Those Who Fail to Honor Their Parents.
The SA has chosen to make one minority group of “sinners” the target for their discrimination. If they treated all “sinners” the same then you would have a point.
Selective use of the Bible to deny employment to those who are guilty of a particular “sin” but give a pass to those who commit “sins” that are not on the organizations political radar has a one word definition.
Do you do that? Are you treating the Salvation Army the same way you would treat the owner of a gay bar who does not want to hire a proselytizer from the 700 Club?
I’m not arguing that the Salvation Army be forced to take the money and adhere to the conditions. I’m saying that even asking for an exemption to allow discrimination is contemptuous. Part of the money they want from the government comes from homosexuals. I respect that they, obstensively, don’t discriminate in providing services; but if their honor won’t allow them to hire homos, then their honor should prohibit taking fag money too.
I work for the Salvation Army. I’ve been there for 7 years now. I know that they provide a service that many would just assume not be bothered with. But, in my opinion, it’s not an excuse for unethical behavior. It’s not a “Get out of jail free” card.
Frankly, I’m just annoyed because I’ve been there for seven years as a Translator and I only make about 35K a year. The national average for my peers is 52K.
Granted, and they’re very keen on stating this, “You don’t like it, leave”. That’s all well and good but, part of the reason my utility bills are so high is the fact that Unions dictate an averaging of wages for their workers. I could easily say to a union worker who feels they are underpaid and has proof to the effect, “You don’t like it, leave”. Where does it end?
How about, if you decide to have a business, albeit not-for-profit and missionary, then prepare yourself to pay proper wages to the proffesionals who work for you.
I’ve got stories boy!!! It’s true, appearances are’nt what they appear to be in this case.
Eliminating government subsidies would solved the problem. Except, of course, for those fags who want to give the Salvation Army money anyway. But I don’t reckon you’d begrudge them their own druthers.
Mind you neither the proselytizer nor the homosexual have any right to disrupt business through overt behavior. The Fundie doesn’t have the right to insult the customers, or even preach at them while on the clock. That’s not what he’s being paid for. Neither does the Homosexual have the right to advocate for gay rights while on the clock. They should both do their jobs and go home. Then they can engage in any behavior they like.
Isn’t that the kind of world you want to live in? Everybody comes to work to do their jobs and then live their lives the rest of the time as they please. Sure sounds good to me.
What sounds good to me is peaceful honest people doing what they please with what they own all the time.
If I owned a gay bar, I’d want to hire people whose very presence would help stimulate my business. I would select people who are attractive, gregarious, and have a certain street smarts about the clientelle. If you forced me to hire Pat Robertson, just because he wanted the job and promised not to be disruptive, I would be sorely pissed at you.
Of course I can’t speak for every chapter of the Salvation Army, but I’ve worked with the locals enough to know that they do get a helluva lot of aid to those that need it.
Uncorruptable? No, no one is.
Effective? Oh yeah, at least around here
I don’t donate to SA anymore. Last time I moved, I had a huge pile of stuff that I split up - clothing for the local domestic violence shelter, all the other stuff for SA. All clearly labeled, even put on opposite ends of the driveway. SA took it all, even the clothing that was quite clearly not labeled for them. When I called them to try to rectify the mistake, and get the clothing that was meant for the shelter back, they blew me off. Worse, the guy acted like I was some kind of con artist. Insuffrably rude. Arrogant. Looking for the * supposedly * mistakenly taken items would just be too much trouble, didn’t I understand that they had far too many donations to take the time to sift through them?
My charitable donations (cash and items) now go only to the local DV shelter and BPW Foundation. Salvation Army is more than welcome to throw big parties for the big donors - they obviously don’t need my piddly offerings.
And what’s up with the United Way? My employer leans hard on us to donate - so they (the employers) get credit for the giving. Pu-leeze.
Cite, please? That’s a rather serious accusation, after all.
Besides which, it seems to me that one should consider the circumstances under which those offenses are committed. There is a big difference, after all, with habitually committing a sin and occasionally lapsing into one.
In addition, most people – religious or otherwise – do consider certain offenses to be more grave than others. Virtually everyone considers rape to be more severe than, say, lying on one’s income tax, or about the big fish that got away. In that respect, there’s no inherent inconsistency when a religous organization chooses to discriminate against habitual pracitioners of one sin, but not another.
—Please demonstrate w/quote where I ‘seem to think government money is mana from heaven’. —
It’s hardly something needing of quote: you’ve throughout ignored where the money comes from: instead you’ve treated it as an obligation: it MUST be paid out, because there are needy people and services.
—you neatly again fail to respond to the situation. The SA will not be taking the money and disobeying the law - since the only way the SA will take the $$ is if the city allows it the exemption requested.—
Fail to respond? My entire point is that giving it the exemption is having it both ways. I hardly care whether you call it legal or perfectly ordinary or not.
—You were outraged that the SA would dare to threaten to close the center (which you acknowledge is needed) w/o the exemptions.—
I think you have me confused with someone else. That certainly sounds skeezy, especially if they aren’t really serious and are just trying to get the law changed, but I don’t remember touching on that particular subject before.
—But the flip side of that is for the city to demand that a nonprofit accept a contract that they don’t want.—
They don’t have to accept the contract if they don’t like the conditions.
—The SA is not required to provide that service.—
True. Who said it was?
—What I do not accept as a viable alternative is that the City refuses to grant the exemption and requires the SA to continue providing the service.—
Don’t be ridiculous. No one here ever advocated that the SA be forced to provide services. All I am saying is that it’s wrong for the SA to take government money and get out of this particular obligation. It’s wrong to be forced to contribute money to this charity, which refuses to hire people I like because of beliefs I don’t agree with (and don’t seem to have much to do with charity in the first place), especially when there are plenty of equally, if not more needy, charities out there.
Apos - if you agree that the SA doesn’t have to take the contract (which they’ve said they won’t do w/o the exemption), then what the fuck is your beef? that they have the audacity to ask for an exemption? They’re allowed to. anyone can. Doesn’t mean it’ll be granted.
and yes, you indeed need to provide a quote for the accusation you made about me. I am acutely aware of the source of governmental grants, have been a tax payer for many, many years, and am quite familiar w/grant processes etc. So back the fuck off your accusation unless you can provide substatiation.
—and yes, you indeed need to provide a quote for the accusation you made about me. I am acutely aware of the source of governmental grants, have been a tax payer for many, many years, and am quite familiar w/grant processes etc.—
Then why demand over and over that I explain why or why not the services remain when gone (for instance, when an org has practices that don’t fit the laws)?
—that they have the audacity to ask for an exemption?—
Yes. It’s not “the fuck” my beef, just a beef. I don’t think it’s right for them to get such an exemption. Hope you’ve gained your bearings.
They put out an RFP (That’s a ‘request for proposals’).
Various organizations may choose to answer said RFP.
No organization can be forced to answer the RFP.
Any organization answering the RFP may choose to ask for exemptions. Said exemptions may be (as in this case) exemptions from certain hiring practices, or may be for exemptions from certain city laws regarding wages, working conditions etc.
THe city may choose to grant the exemptions or not.
Should the city choose to not grant the exemption, the organizations have the option to not sign the contract. If you’re part of the city, you have a right to make your stance known to them. In any event, of course you have a right to your own opinion as well.
HOwever, the city who apparently needs the services has the absolute right to either grant the exemption or not, depending on what they perceive is the best result for their city. The Salvation Army as a corresponding right to operate as they see fit for their organization.
this is how such things work.
as for this:
I haven’t a clue what message you’re trying to communicate.
—In any event, of course you have a right to your own opinion as well.—
I’m glad you felt the need to restate this. Perhaps next you can explain whether or not we are allowed to post these, whatayacall them?: “opinions?” to messageboards?
You two are arguing but a miniscule example of the bigger problem. But, you see the dilema that a consciencious person has with this, you two going back and forth on it. Add to that many, many more similar situations with this concern and you know from where I raise my voice.
It’s certainly one of those things where it seems people have a hard-line believe (in the vein of pro-life/pro-choice); you either go one way or the other.
Or so you claim. Can you back that up with anything? Oh, wait, this is Omnipresent I’m talking to. Allegations galore, proof of nothing.
Could it be, just perhaps, that a spiritual organization, nay, a church, even, considers that all of its employees are responsible for fulfilling its spiritual mission? That they want the support staff who, by definition, support the spiritual leadership, to be in full accord with the leaders and their work?
Even on the social services side, the SA doesn’t provide their services simply because they’re needed, they provide them because they feel that it is a requirement of Christianity (that which you do to the least of these…) to minister to people physically and spiritually. Why wouldn’t they want people in their ranks (civilian and “army”) who are in tune with the basic underpinnings of their purpose and mission?
No, Omni is correct, the Salvation Army does not require it’s employees to agree or even participate in it’s missions statement. The Officers are the “ministers” if you will. Employees can be of any spiritual belief ( Jew, Muslum, Christian, Atheist). But, of course, as an employee, when in Rome, one would be wise to not disagree so outspokenly about Rome. Know what I mean?
There are, however, employees who are Salvationists. Think of Salvationists as Catholics, Jews, or Muslums in that respect.
But no, you can be an employee of the Salvation Army and not give one damn about their mission statement.